October 2007

October 28, 2007

Beyond our digital strategy programs where WOM is the cornerstone communications goal, we are often asked to "add in" some viral sharing and "talk" to a program. You know, get the bloggers chatting up the product. Get those folks sharing the video we made. That sort of thing.

Essentially we are asked to make a program viral often after a program is defined. That's tough. Most viral programs never get there. And the most reliable recipe for making something so share-worthy that you have big video views or game plays under your belt, will take your brand places you may not want to go (think outrageous, outlandish and often, plain stupid).

Our approach to designing a program that does get talked about and shared follows the following 6 principles. It often defines the program from the start. What else should go on this list?

1. The content is outrageous, laugh-out-loud funny or highly provocative: we have all seen videos that you just had to share. The challenge is that to be appealing to a broad group, these have to be over-the-top to cut through the YouTube clutter. Often this pushes them beyond relevance to a brand.

2. The content or experience facilitates something I care about: Too many brands want to "own" the experience online - as if they could - by creating a unique, brand-centric experience. It is often better to understand people, what they want to spend time doing and then help them accomplish that in some way.

3. It’s participatory and engaging: A clever game or activity allows the user to get involved on some level. If there is more that I can do besides ‘watch’ then I am more likely to advocate for it.

4. It’s personalized: This is about relevance and ego. If the video says my name or includes some personal element that I have selected, suddenly I am more involved with the content or experience.

5. There’s an incentive for sharing: Will it benefit me or something I care about? This can be self-centered such as contests to win prizes or less directly so, as with a philanthropic tie-in. Often, adding a ‘social good’ element will help motivate share-ers. (e.g. for every ‘view’ up to 50K, we will donate $1 to charity….). Often the incentive needs to be tested in a live program just like a direct marketing offer to understand what becomes motivational for most people.

6. It is “talk-worthy” amongst influencers: the traditional definition of “influencer” has been re-written in our world of social media. Once we understand who may be influential in a particular group, we need to understand what may cause them to talk about a campaign. Often it is not the same thing that may drive participants to get involved.

The debate continues. What do you think?

What else can spark buzz online?

How do you do things differently for buzz vs. sustained WOM?

Can low engagment products like CPG generate conversation as easily as fan brands?

We will have a session at November's WOMMA Summit on "Stunts vs. Science: What does it take to spark the conversation?"

October 20, 2007

I had a recent experience over at one of our peer advertising shops. It can sometimes be funny as our various disciplines collide around WOM and social media-involved programs. There is defintely tension there. I know that tension will surface at the upcoming WOMMA conference where we have a whole session on "Who owns WOM in the marcom mix".

But Lest we take oursleves too seriously....

And another view.... (keep watching....wait for it...wait.....ahhh! There's a tremendous quote from one of the kids - two actually....

Get the latest Word of Mouth expertise at WOMMA’s 2007 Summit, November 13-15 in Las Vegas.Get the agenda now>

Geek is cool. It always has been, it has just taken different forms. Today, it's all about video games, D&D, comic books, science fiction and a splintered universe of offbeat music including Nerdcore (geek hip hop). (You can check out a documentary of the Nerdcore "movement" here) The geek eco-system is actually made up of sub-communities defined by subject matter interests from experience format (comic book vs. computer game) to story types (Battlestar Gallactica to Dr. Who) to other affinities, I'm sure.

The common element is a slight-to-greater sense of being an outsider or at least on the fringes of the head-of-the-tail pop culture. An there is a type of tribal kinship. Can this kinship transcend the subcommunities' differences? Can a comic book geek identify with a Halo 3 enthusiast? I think the tribal sense is powerful and may transcend the experience and even the story formats. I had that sense when I attended VideoGames Live! at the Kennedy Center.

The Idea alreadyWhat if we could create the ultimate Geek destination that combined the best of geek retail with community? What if we created the Geek Superstore?

Retailxtremegeek and ThinkGeek are well-established in this category. We need to rethink the category. The current xtremegeek store has some great stuff (where else can you find geek staples like trebuchets and barcode t-shirts) but looks and feels too much like that bastion of malls from the eighties. We need more cross-over merchandise:

button-down white shirts with white-thread (subtle) emblems of Battlestar Gallactica and the scientists from Andromeda Strain. You know, things a guy can wear to work and "blend" while still having that subtle, tribal symbol.

A selection of geek music from electronica to hiphop

Advance editions of big name comic books like DMZ

Special edition Moleskine notebooks with simple text messages on the outside (e.g. "And they have a plan", "I'm a doctor not a brickmason.")

We have to be careful here as many of the most desireable gadgets - iPhones, Blackkberry 8830's - would require complex service and sales support. Still there's a fleet of gadgets on another level. Or we could create the "ultimate collection" which is really only one produce per category but it's the best in it's class.

CommunityIt must be more than standard retail. Geeks are a tribe(s). They are social amongst themselves and are enthusiasts for authentic, if not a bit fanciful, experiences. Apple has done a good job of creating a sense of community in their flagship stores. Between the genius bar, product demos, auditorium and occaisional events, they become a destination. Discovery had that in their awesome DC flagship store when I worked there. We actually broadcast a live weekly Webcast from the store in front of an audience. Thinkgeek is already doing some fun things to build community. The good news is that the community(s) already exist. That is the best way to "build" community - start with an authentic, organic core. We have to understand the community and then offer it ways that make it easier to interact.

Free broadest-band wireless. Keep it simple. That's the bright light. We (geeks) are the moths. You get it.

Organize products around customer picks. This is like the independent bookstore that features a display of staff picks with handwritten reviews. These would be collected and displayed online. But customer lists would also be featured in-store to give them a spotlight.

Create a creators circuit where the writer of Y: The Last Man and the effects guy from Serenity can talk and meet with fans. We already see this happening at Comiccon and other big events. Let's bring in more people to talk with fans. It's no longer about the head-of-the-tail stars, it's the creatives that contribute that are interesting. And geek fans are loyal fans.

Product co-creation. Let's take a page from the book of Threadless. They produce customer-created t-shirts that are voted up by the community. Let's invite customers in to vote up merchandise for our shelves. They choose.

The nameTeh PownTown. Teh-ville. I know it sucks. I need some help here. I have become a big fan of Namewire, the name blog. They are the best naming and branding blog out there and I follow them regularly. I am hoping they can help name this IdeaBar idea.

"Teh" is the classic typo for "the" and before you dismiss it completely think of the SEO benefits. "Pown" is current geek speak. "Town" is stupid but like I said, I need some help.

Whatever the name, it must appeal to the fringe sensibility of the geeks even at the expense of becoming a bit of a head-scratcher for the mass market.

October 14, 2007

Monday is Blog Action Day. That means a bunch of us (14K) signed up to blog about the environment. I did it because I care about the environment. But I really did it to explore what this type of mass action might lead to? Will readers notice? Will we get any earned media?

For myself, I believe there should be a model of a thing called "Ideal Corporate Citizenship". (I already own the url). We do a fair amount of work with clients developing or communicating about their corporate social responsibility programs (CSR). Many clients pursue this in earnest. Some are just looking for a 'social good' credential to help sales. I believe this latter group will utlimately reveal themselves to customers and it will hurt their brands (and sales).

Ideal Corporate Citizenship is a recipe that every company should fulfill on to walk-the-walk of being a good citizen. It is not a nice-to-have but a must-have credential that earns your company the right of citizenship in a global collective of individual people.

The "Ideal" part is simply a beacon - something to aim for and not ever attain. The job of being a citizen is never done.

There would be a different recipe for different companies and locales. In general though, the ideal would include the following main programs:

Environment: from carbon to waste reduction; their are so many wasy to have a positive impact

Volunteerism: employee and customer volunteer programs - this is the best way to have authentic skin in the game

Brand Commitment: this is a program specifically relevant to your business and brand. For Starbucks, it may be coffee farmers

Education: all companies should help

Healthcare: all companies should help

Ethics and Governance

Diversity

Employee Relations

Customers' Rights

Supplier Relations

We need business to contribute to making our society better. Customers will show preference for those brands that step up and have a meaningful postion. It's time for us to define an ideal and then work towards it everyday.

Remember, Stream was an invite-only event in Athens hosted by WPP. It featured marketing and comms gurus from all of the agencies and digital companies within the WPP universe, clients from major brands, and tech luminaries that are friends of the family, so-to speak.

The session was well attended on the last day of the event after a late night of the Extravaganza show - a weird variety show that defies description - and Midnight cooking madness where attendees signed up to cook specialties after midnight (don't worry most of the rest of the program or 'un-program' was dedicated to digital ideas and issues).

We had ad agency people, tech entrepeneurs, PR firms and clients. We spoke a bit about WOM best practices but then we got into the debate.

On the client side:People generally agreed with the point that the CEO is best to own. Leadership at the top will matter. Support for WOM programs may also be connected to buy-in to the Net Promoter Score. That also is likely to come from the C-suite.

The silos of "communiations" (aka PR) and marketing on the client side is probably going to time-out in the future.

Marketing has the bigger budget for WOM programs but will likely reach out to their PR counterparts to help run these programs.

It was probably due to the make-up of the room but no one spoke about CRM or consumer affairs owning WOM

On the agency side:

We all acknowledged that "owning" was probably the wrong question. We all wanted to play well together. But clients are confused as to who to go to for programs designed to activate (and measure) positive WOM.

I claimed that word of mouth marketing is a natural extension of the highest, most abstract definition of public relations. I wanted to distinguish between what the discipline is based upon - "realtions," "relationships" - and how it is often portrayed - media relations and manipulative spin.

Since we align ourselves to the client structure, we will need to make sense of the PR vs. marketing dilemma. If a CMO wants to launch a WOM-based program will the ad agency voluntarily call-in the PR folks (providing they have demontsrated WOM expertise)? Likewise, if communications launches said program, will PR suggest a complimentary ad campaign as that may enhance the talkability of the program?

The debate continues. What do you think?

Where should a client go for a significant WOM program?

Should both PR and marketing develop the capabilities to go deep in WOM?

Or is a third discipline that sits outside those others?

Get the latest Word of Mouth expertise at WOMMA’s 2007 Summit, November 13-15 in Las Vegas.Get the agenda now>

Further chronicles from the first-ever WPP-sponsored un-conference: Stream. The event was held in Athens a week ago and featured a great variety of folks. I had to purposely make sure I didn't go to all of the social media-related sessions. Even though I am eager to meet and hear from fellow social media geeks, I chose a session on gaming.

He offered a quick survey of hardware and software with plenty of small anecdotes all along the way. The market is moving (has moved?) 'all wireless online enabled.' Online communities allow us to play anyone. they make the experience social. i am old enough to remember the gang at Downtown Digital (1991?) playing Doom over the network with telephones on speaker or, worse, taped to their heads.

Now? There are 7 million members of XBOX Live. 45 million games downloaded from the store. 2 million messages sent.

Innovative experiences (beyond great games)

Under a discussion of "innovative gaming experiences," somone in the room applauded the Nintendo DS system for its multiple inputs: shout at it, blow on it, tap on the screen and reacts. Innovative interfaces and user experience really grab me. That's why the Wii is so beautiful. It actually has the ultimate ergonomics - an extension of your arm. The interfaces that allow natural movement like the Wii may be the key to greater adoption of 3D virtual worlds for social experiences. I know some people who believe that Second life-like dimensional experiences are the future of computing. i don't think so. But I do see how Nintendo interface innovation is a step towards improving that overall experience.

Activating fanbases

Who's thinking about connecting, facilitating, empowering fanbases? Obviously the game publishers and box developers are. What about the agencies? Is product placement or white-label games (e.g. Burger King XBox games) the only way to market via games? What about activating fans? Who is doing that well out there?

October 05, 2007

After a day and a half of wpp's Stream2007 event, I have met some terrific people, participated in some great conversations and activities and generally gotten with the program.

So, what's 'the program?' How can we get a large marketing company, dominated historically by advertising agencies, to become more innovative, collaborative and to work outside their comfort zone. Well, the tech industry in different parts of the world seems to have a good time (fun + social + productive) at these unconferences. Let's see if that might work for these folks.

So, strickly speaking, this type of gathering is a bit inorganic to this crowd but that doesn't mean it cannot work. In fact, I think it is working for many. In the morning, we ran a session to organize the bloggers and vloggers in the crowd. It was well attended and lively but one question I asked was name a conference you have been to that you would consider a good, or even, great experience and why. There were answers but what there was also a disconnect. Someone in the group put their finger on it, "ad agencies don't go to conferences, we go to awards shows."

Interesting. So, this type of conference is new for many of the attendees.

Assembling them here with the Kinnernet format is an attempt to see if a little of the electricity that sparks some of the tech community will work on advertising agencies. Spark ideas by mixing up odd-fellows and odd exepriences. Oh, and let go fo the reins a bit.

One thing seems clear. Through wpp's digital acquisitions/investments and the people they have invited, the event is not as dominated by the ad agencies as they might have been in previous years. The mix between tech geek and marketing geek seems more even. With a little VC sprinkled on the top.

I ran into someone who felt strongly that this is the type of idea-sparking will be good for the agencies. This will help them/us be the guy/gal who brings the radical ideas to clients. Agencies, especially ad firms, have always been the source of the big campaign idea. That's not enough anymore. Our big ideas need to be about business and a larger sense of creativity. This unconference clearly stated wpp's commitment to this leadership role.

Andrew Keen read from his book. Then he talked some more. And a bit more. And he referenced his book quite a few times. So, essentially it was a lecture. Until Jory broke in. Clearly his point is to be confrontational. He mentioned "debating" some of the tech luminaries at other conferences. So, his job is to create conflict. And when the room got to discussion, there was plenty of conflict. Ultimately a good conversation between people who fundamentally disagree.

He bashes the "Messianic faith" of rich entrepeneurs like O'Reilly (FOO Camp).

He is searching for the ideology of Web2.0. "Democratization" is an overused word in the Web2.0 world. Essentially, he thinks the Web2.0/social media craze is a bunch of hot air.

The ideology of Web 2.0 is actually a confluence of ideas

couterculture of the sixties: idealized view of the community in the sixties leads to the romaticization of that idea. We don't understand how community works

freemarket eighties: the market will solve all problems (e.g. Chris Anderson/The Long Tail)

technophiles of the nineties:he objects to the fanatical notions that technology will somehow resolve our alienation. Millions who have not been able to express themselves can now do so, or at least that's the promise: technlogy liberates all of us.

Media becomes demonized as unjust gatekeepers.

His point: 1. Gatekeepers don't keep out talent: mainstream media works well. He defends mainstream media. 2. There's only a few of us who have something original to say 3. The purpose of media is to educate and entertain (not righting social injustices as Web 2.0 often fashions itself)4. Maintream media is in crisis: fewer people read newspapers, music business in freefall, television ......

Jory finally interrupted him. A couple of cracks about a traditional media presentation and then into some great discussion.

Peter from Technorati defended the role of communication in Facebook and other parts of social media and he points out that the destruction of media is a constant state (i.e. destruction of movies by TV, etc...).

Andy counters over the point that who is benefiting financially from Web2.0? The owners of the "empty vessels" - My Space, Google, etc... Bloggers aren't making any better a living then the ailing journalists, in fact, they are worse off.

What would he change?Anonymity - I just don't know that that has a whole lot to do with his core argument. There are plenty of "known" bloggers and social network members who have built up their own credibility based upon....their credible behavior.

Final point from a participant: traditional media and social media can co-exist. The sky is not falling. Still I get the sense that beyond Andrew's bomb-throwing, he is writing about some real changes. Yes, they may be part of an ongoing continuum and not novel today. But he is a smart guy.